ITO (IT) - 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPANKAR K. KHIWANI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6991/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 November 2019AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lakhs, making it non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was treated as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order granting exemption under Article 16(1) of the India-France DTAA. The assessee had filed a revised return after the original return was filed belatedly.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and validity of a revised return filed after a belated original return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar
Hearing: 26.11.2019Pronounced: 26.11.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No. 263/MUM/2019
ITA No. 6991/MUM/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

This appeal and cross objection are filed by the revenue and assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.09.2018 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds: - "

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O to give exemption (benefit of) Article 16(1) of the India-France DTAA despite upholding that revised return u/s 139(5) is not valid return as the original return was filed u/s 139(4) of the I.T Act"

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred by passing a non-speaking order and by not correctly appreciating the facts of the case."

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred by not bringing on record whether the taxes paid in France are in addition & separate from the taxes paid in India or the credit of taxes paid in India has been claimed in the tax return filed in France.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in directing the A.O to give benefit of Article 16(1) of the DTAA to the assessee without bringing on record that if the credit of taxes paid in India has been claimed in the French tax return & assessee is granted refund of taxes paid in India-then it will be case of double non-taxation, which is not as per the spirit of the DTAA.

5. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."

6. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary."

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. DR fairly submitted that tax effect on the issues in the present appeal is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT

(A.Y: 2015-16) & C.O. No. 263/MUM/2019 Deepankar K. Khiwani Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. We find that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Hence this appeal is dismissed.

5.

Coming to cross objection filed by the assessee it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that as the revenue’s appeal is dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee may be treated as infructuous. In view of the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as infructuous and dismissed accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →